Guest Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Mike Ashley took over a club pretty much maximising its earnign potential You've hit the nail on the head there Leazes. The club had largely maxed out its income potential, the problem was that it was still making a loss. So the only thing that could've been done was to reduce outgoings. Or bankroll us. I don't think it was maxed out. I think with the right acumen to take us the the next level (actually winning things) and/or being in the Champions League every year our fanbase and income could have increased even further. It was never the case though. He was a very reactionary chairman. We got into the champions league and only signed bowyer. Dropped out of the Champions League places because of it. Knee-jerk was to spend more to try and get back there. Once we made the CL, the investment in players wasn't provided at the times when we needed it most to kick on, only at the time when his arse went when we dropped out of the CL. Makes you wonder if he wanted to spend as little as possible once we were in the CL, to maximise the dividends, and when the CL boat left town he went shit-or-bust to get it back, with bust almost the outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) Dear God. You're really ready for the home. So you think the 14th biggest turnover in football, as defined in the above post for your simplistic obsessed brain , isn't enough to run a top football club without havign to sell your best players ? omg Not if you're paying them nearly 80% of that turnover OHHHHHHH MYYYYYYYY GODDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD 4 years ago lad, 4 years ago. Does the club still have the 14th biggest turnover, or has your man successfully reduced that too ? Dear me, not good business that is it ? First priority = maximise revenue. Your man should call Fred and ask him for advice. I'm sure others on here understood my point, but I didn't expect you to, nor Toonpack being one of those who were attracted back to the club by the progressive policies of the ex owners and just can't bring himself to admit it. Edited February 8, 2011 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 So, if the incomings, the 14th biggest in football at the time (according to you, haven't checked it), are overshadowed by the outgoings, where is the money coming from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Mike Ashley took over a club pretty much maximising its earnign potential You've hit the nail on the head there Leazes. The club had largely maxed out its income potential, the problem was that it was still making a loss. So the only thing that could've been done was to reduce outgoings. Or bankroll us. I don't think it was maxed out. I think with the right acumen to take us the the next level (actually winning things) and/or being in the Champions League every year our fanbase and income could have increased even further. It was never the case though. He was a very reactionary chairman. We got into the champions league and only signed bowyer. Dropped out of the Champions League places because of it. Knee-jerk was to spend more to try and get back there. Once we made the CL, the investment in players wasn't provided at the times when we needed it most to kick on, only at the time when his arse went when we dropped out of the CL. Makes you wonder if he wanted to spend as little as possible once we were in the CL, to maximise the dividends, and when the CL boat left town he went shit-or-bust to get it back, with bust almost the outcome. oh dear. How many times do I have to remind you we also signed Woodgate in advance of the end of season to attempt to [successfully] secure the qualification. They also speculated to accumulate when buying the players to get there in the first place. Idiots like you, using hindsight, slate them for spending money they don't have when it doesn't work out and forget to mention when it does. What a tool. Shame your man doesn't speculate to accumulate or even attempt to recover the lost ground since he bought the club. "Makes you wonder if he wanted to spend as little as possible once we were in the premiership"...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 So, if the incomings, the 14th biggest in football at the time (according to you, haven't checked it), are overshadowed by the outgoings, where is the money coming from? omg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Mike Ashley took over a club pretty much maximising its earnign potential You've hit the nail on the head there Leazes. The club had largely maxed out its income potential, the problem was that it was still making a loss. So the only thing that could've been done was to reduce outgoings. Or bankroll us. I don't think it was maxed out. I think with the right acumen to take us the the next level (actually winning things) and/or being in the Champions League every year our fanbase and income could have increased even further. It was never the case though. He was a very reactionary chairman. We got into the champions league and only signed bowyer. Dropped out of the Champions League places because of it. Knee-jerk was to spend more to try and get back there. Once we made the CL, the investment in players wasn't provided at the times when we needed it most to kick on, only at the time when his arse went when we dropped out of the CL. Makes you wonder if he wanted to spend as little as possible once we were in the CL, to maximise the dividends, and when the CL boat left town he went shit-or-bust to get it back, with bust almost the outcome. oh dear. How many times do I have to remind you we also signed Woodgate in advance of the end of season to attempt to [successfully] secure the qualification. They also speculated to accumulate when buying the players to get there in the first place. Idiots like you, using hindsight, slate them for spending money they don't have when it doesn't work out and forget to mention when it does. What a tool. Shame your man doesn't speculate to accumulate or even attempt to recover the lost ground since he bought the club. "Makes you wonder if he wanted to spend as little as possible once we were in the premiership"...... Get help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 So, if the incomings, the 14th biggest in football at the time (according to you, haven't checked it), are overshadowed by the outgoings, where is the money coming from? omg. You can't spend it, if it's owed out. What part do you not understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 So, if the incomings, the 14th biggest in football at the time (according to you, haven't checked it), are overshadowed by the outgoings, where is the money coming from? omg. You can't spend it, if it's owed out. What part do you not understand? obviously, sell your best players and get relegated then, according to you anyway. That must mean about 14 premiership clubs will be relegated and go into administration, according to you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 So, if the incomings, the 14th biggest in football at the time (according to you, haven't checked it), are overshadowed by the outgoings, where is the money coming from? omg. You can't spend it, if it's owed out. What part do you not understand? obviously, sell your best players and get relegated then, according to you anyway. That must mean about 14 premiership clubs will be relegated and go into administration, according to you Get help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31237 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 So, if the incomings, the 14th biggest in football at the time (according to you, haven't checked it), are overshadowed by the outgoings, where is the money coming from? omg. You can't spend it, if it's owed out. What part do you not understand? But yet you say that Shepherd should've spent more in the summer we signed Bowyer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) So, if the incomings, the 14th biggest in football at the time (according to you, haven't checked it), are overshadowed by the outgoings, where is the money coming from? omg. You can't spend it, if it's owed out. What part do you not understand? But yet you say that Shepherd should've spent more in the summer we signed Bowyer? What's that got to do with turnover and expenditure? We weren't operating at a loss at that point. We'd just qualified for the Champions League? Surely if you're going to spend future income, it's more sensible to do it at that point to try and ensure we're in it the year after too, instead of giving £50m to Souness the season after when we weren't in it. Edited February 8, 2011 by AshleysSkidMark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31237 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 So, if the incomings, the 14th biggest in football at the time (according to you, haven't checked it), are overshadowed by the outgoings, where is the money coming from? omg. You can't spend it, if it's owed out. What part do you not understand? But yet you say that Shepherd should've spent more in the summer we signed Bowyer? What's that got to do with turnover and expenditure? We weren't operating at a loss at that point. We'd just qualified for the Champions League? Surely if you're going to spend future income, it's more sensible to do it at that point to try and ensure we're in it the year after too, instead of giving £50m to Souness the season after when we weren't in it. Had we qualified? Not for the group stages. And we made a small profit that year after years of losses. Either you're promoting responsible spending or you're not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 So, if the incomings, the 14th biggest in football at the time (according to you, haven't checked it), are overshadowed by the outgoings, where is the money coming from? omg. You can't spend it, if it's owed out. What part do you not understand? But yet you say that Shepherd should've spent more in the summer we signed Bowyer? What's that got to do with turnover and expenditure? We weren't operating at a loss at that point. We'd just qualified for the Champions League? Surely if you're going to spend future income, it's more sensible to do it at that point to try and ensure we're in it the year after too, instead of giving £50m to Souness the season after when we weren't in it. Had we qualified? Not for the group stages. And we made a small profit that year after years of losses. Either you're promoting responsible spending or you're not. It depends what you class as sensible, that's open to interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31237 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 What do you class as sensible? Leazes advocates 'speculate to accumulate', we'd speculated in the previous seasons and Shepherd saw that season as our chance to accumulate. Would you have been keen to see us getting further into debt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 What do you class as sensible? Leazes advocates 'speculate to accumulate', we'd speculated in the previous seasons and Shepherd saw that season as our chance to accumulate. Would you have been keen to see us getting further into debt? Well we got into further debt anyway and it went pear shaped. My point, which I think you're missing, is that if the £50m risk had been taken by giving Sir Bobby the chance to improve his squad after CL qualification then it would have been a much smaller risk, instead of being reactionary and waiting for us to decline. That's why I don't think Ashley should get us further into debt now to get european football, because the risk of us not getting it is too large. If we were there and it was a case of borrowing to consolidate that position then I see that as lower risk to the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31237 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 'Consolidate that postion'? Like Leeds did? None of us honestly know what Shepherd's motive were that summer. Was he looking to recover some of the previous losses to repay the debt? Or was he looking to increase his dividend? One thing you can never accuse him of is lacking ambition. With looking to beatify him, if Ashley showed half the ambition of his predecessors then we'd all be happier fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 'Consolidate that postion'? Like Leeds did? None of us honestly know what Shepherd's motive were that summer. Was he looking to recover some of the previous losses to repay the debt? Or was he looking to increase his dividend? One thing you can never accuse him of is lacking ambition. With looking to beatify him, if Ashley showed half the ambition of his predecessors then we'd all be happier fans. And I haven't. How would you like Ashley to show that ambition? Get the club into debt trying to reach a pretty unattainable top 4 position. With the money in the teams that are up there now, how much do you think it'd cost? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31237 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Given that any current debt would be against Ashley, I'd be more than happy to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31237 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Given that any current debt would be against Ashley, I'd be more than happy to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Your Name Here Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 'Consolidate that postion'? Like Leeds did? None of us honestly know what Shepherd's motive were that summer. Was he looking to recover some of the previous losses to repay the debt? Or was he looking to increase his dividend? One thing you can never accuse him of is lacking ambition. With looking to beatify him, if Ashley showed half the ambition of his predecessors then we'd all be happier fans. And I haven't. How would you like Ashley to show that ambition? Get the club into debt trying to reach a pretty unattainable top 4 position. With the money in the teams that are up there now, how much do you think it'd cost? That’s how everybody bar Man City do it. Your missing the key point. You can’t rest on your laurels in football. The moment a club stops trying to go forward it’s guaranteed to go backwards, and once that happens revenue streams start to fall and the club enters a vicious downward cycle. Nobody wants Ashley to run up huge debts in a mad dash to win the Champions League. They want him to have ambition for the club beyond having a profit on the balance sheet at the end of the season. As it stands he’s run up huge debts going nowhere. Diminishing our standing has club has cost a fortune. There’s ambition. There’s Ridsdale style madness, and there’s Bob Murray style complacency. The later of the three most reassembles how NUFC are being run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Those wanting us to "show ambition" haven't really elaborated and provided a viable method. Are we meant to overtake the clubs being bankrolled by multi billionaires? It's just not feasible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plausibledenial 0 Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Mike Ashley is doing a fabulous job ...for Mike Ashley ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoular 0 Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Just suppose that MA was to accept 80M for the club, plus the repayment of his loan, so about 180M total. Why has no-one come in and bought us? Perhaps the perception of the club that we have, is higher than that of potential investors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spongebob toonpants 4166 Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Just suppose that MA was to accept 80M for the club, plus the repayment of his loan, so about 180M total. Why has no-one come in and bought us?Perhaps the perception of the club that we have, is higher than that of potential investors? A lot of assumptions in this post - none of them accurate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 The information that has come out since suggests that there wasn't time for due diligence and it was a now or never type deal pushed through by the halls :lol: Another boring nob crawls out the woodwork with nothing to contribute. I don't care if you're laughing. You're such a boring cock that when you are laughing, it's not usually funny! Ignoring your Kevin and Perry moment, I'll actually say that I agree with quite a lot of what you say on the subject in general. However, the bit I quoted is an absolutely ludicrous defence of Ashley and shows a complete lack of balance on your part regarding this matter, which is what SBTP was alluding to. In any case, even if it were true (highly unlikely) it doesn't make Ashley any less stupid. Indeed, agreeing to do a deal of this magnitude, without the time for due diligence, would be an idiotic decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now